Why do Democrat leaders think that White displacement only applies to voters, not politicians?

Senior Democrats are now finding themselves confronted with an amusing paradox: how does a White politician remain atop an organization committed to non-White identity politics? This is a particularly salient issue since non-Whites are the new core of the Democratic Party. Perhaps they should have considered this before making flooding the country with brown people their party’s primary policy objective.

To the Democrats’ traitorous credit, this national suicide process has been an enormous electoral benefit to them for decades. No state showcases how politically beneficial browning can be for Democrats than California. Before it went blue for Bill Clinton in 1992, it had been considered one of the reddest states in the Union. That same year, two Jewish women, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein (special election), also captured the state’s senate seats. Both held on for decades, their offices becoming less assailable with each passing election.

Boxer retired in 2016, making way for Kamala Harris to win by a landslide. However, Feinstein isn’t ready to let an Ascendant take her place just yet. At age 84, she’ll be running for a sixth term in the 2018 midterms. This hasn’t been well-received. At the party’s recent state convention, Kevin de Leon defeated Feinstein 54-37 in a contest for the party’s endorsement. Although this wasn’t above the 60% threshold to secure the endorsement for himself, he did succeed in denying it to Feinstein.

De Leon, the son of Guatemalans, eagerly complained that “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership!” As she exited the stage after a speech, his supporters chanted “times up!” at Feinstein. The MSM is claiming that this debacle is a result of insufficient leftism on her part, but we know that’s nonsense. The new Californians want to be represented by someone like themselves.

Regrettably, Feinstein will most likely be reelected. De Leon’s campaign has less than 6% of her funding, and she still retains the backing of the establishment. The polls currently indicate that she’ll get to ride off into the sunset. However, a Democrat with the same skin color shouldn’t aspire to her office later on. They’re no longer needed. As the selection of Tom Perez for DNC chairman demonstrated, Whites (and Jews) are increasingly unsuitable for visible party leadership.

The demographic destruction of America was a selfish project that only benefited a couple generations of White Democrats, while leaving those seeking to follow in their footsteps dispossessed and irrelevant. A youthful sprite in comparison to Feinstein, Hillary Clinton was the biggest casualty of this process thus far. The greatest propaganda campaign in history couldn’t secure the presidency for a White woman relying on high turnout from the “Coalition of the Ascendant” while running on a platform that alienated many White voters.

It’s important to remember that in 2016, Hillary still had the benefit of many Whites in their 70’s and 80’s who’d been voting a straight Democratic ticket for over 50 years, based on their conception of what the party was during their youth. This is a rapidly shrinking demographic. Come 2020, the racial disparity will be even sharper. In this context, Feinstein’s senate colleague Kamala Harris is one of the few logical choices for the nomination.

That’s why shortly after news of Feinstein’s defeat, I was surprised to read an interview in the Washington Free Beacon in which former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (instigator of the Charlottesville ambush) proffered the rhetorical question: “Who better to take on Trump than me?” Somebody brown, Terry.

Why do White leaders in the Democratic Party still think that White displacement only applies to voters, not politicians? I can’t figure that out, but I’m looking forward to watching them be cured of this delusion in future primaries.